The dispute centers on As per the case facts, a dispute arose between a supplier and a buyer concerning delayed payments and interest under the 1993 Act. Although the principal ... amount had been paid, there was a disagreement over compounded interest awarded by an arbitrator. The question arose regarding the interpretation of Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the 1993 Act concerning the buyer's payment liability, and specifically whether compounded interest should be considered a principal amount under Section 5. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The Court stated that the contractual relationship and obligations between the parties remained unchanged. While acknowledging the dispute over whether compounded interest should be treated as a principal amount under Section 5, it noted that this specific aspect was not adequately addressed by the arbitrator. The Court allowed the buyer to pursue remedies, including an application for restitution or execution, to recover any amounts paid or to enforce security if the supplier did not refund the disputed amount. payments for goods supplied by Snehadeep Structures Pvt. Limited to Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. The contract was signed in 1995, and the disagreement arose over the calculation and applicability of interest on these delayed payments after amendments were made to the Interest on Delayed Payments Act in 1998.